Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Notable Native Americans of the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Bduke (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Notable Native Americans of the United States

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not an appropriate page for Wikipedia. There is no criteria for "notable" Native Americans. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are notability criteria for people generally though, that should be able to be applied to this. Whether some of these people are or aren't notable I don't know, but it's not relevant to this discussion. I think this is a perfectly good list for Wikipedia. We have lists of notable people in other 'groups', why not native americans? --Ged UK (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are Wikipedia criteria for notability. There is not another objective criteria. It's inherently POV. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: $$Native American \subseteq People$$, and we definitely have criteria for notable people. WP:PEOPLE.  Plasticup  T / C  12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP It is appropriate for Wikipedia, also the word "notable" is criteria. There are millions of other lists. This list was created to shorten page length on the Native American of the United States. It is very specific, and not one that is already made.Swampfire (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a good and worthwhile list. I have no opinion of the people presently on the list, but at worst that's an "edit for content" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - The page uses this page as a "reference", and then proceeds to copy it name for name - in exact order. This is called plagarism. If you're going to use this as a "source", and then have an argument for the pages existence that it was created to shorten the length of the Native Americans in the US page, then I don't see why we couldn't simply list this external link at the bottom of that page. Wikipedia is not a mirror, and this page mirrors that of the above link, which makes it a potential legal problem if the publisher of said page learns that we are copying his stuff word-for-word. Before anyone tries to disclaim this on the grounds that you cannot copyright a person's name, you can copyright the presentation of said names and if you look at this page and that link they are identical (which includes the description of each of the people). Not even rearranging the names would change the fact that they were clearly stolen from this other website. Wikipedia should use sources to back up their claims, not duplicate the source information in its entirety.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then it's a speedy under G13, though i'm not sure how you can list them alphabetically without having the same list. Ged UK (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true, but there is a difference between having some of the same names in alphabetical order, and have only the names on the link listed above AND having the exact descriptions of each of the people listed that the link above uses. This page makes no attempt to find any other "notable" Native Americans, only list the ones that link has. Regardless, this page isn't a list of notable Native Americans, it's a list of what that link above deems to be notable Native Americans. I see a couple of ones that aren't on that list, but if you look at probably 95% of the rest of them, they match up identical with the webpage. No matter how you slice it, it's a mirror.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so any of you know BIGNOLE only came here to say anything against what I say, because he was warned yesterday for violating WP:NPA he appears to be trolling my contribs and following me. Also the list was was started on Wikipedia with a few names on the Native Americans of the United States page. Then once it had more added to it. Lists were found and cited. But once names where in Alpahabetical order another list was found to help, and was cited, so no there is not plagarism. Plagarism is if you try to take the work of others WITHOUT citing them. If you continue to try and follow me and make personal attacks as you just did again. I will be forced to turn you in and have you blocked.Swampfire (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even need to justify your accusation of "trolling my contribs" with a well versed retort - simply know that I didn't stumble across this page through your edits. As far as plagarism goes, the evidence that I showed above speaks for itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you notice the first comment he made seems to be more of an attack against me since I created the page, Than anything else. And as far as not making an effort to try and add to it. Is not the point as the original list was started with just a few names. Then instead of search all of Wiki one page at a time. A FEW lists outside of here were found and combined and to the names that were ALREADY on the list here and 2 of them were CITED. I guess you don't understand plagarism. Because the main thing of plagarism is that you try to make the work appear to be your own. Which was never done. You need to understand a word before you follow me around and further violate WP:NPA as you have. Just accept the warnings you got yesterday and move on.Swampfire (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay sometimes good lists start as a copy of another list. That doesn't make it a copy vio necessarily, because it isn't a "unique arrangement" of words and ideas -- alpha list is okay.  And, as people collaborate, it will grow (and possibly shrink).  I'm fine with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bignole and Ged UK, I'm afraid that you are both mistaken. If you look closely at the two lists they are actually quite different. There are many names on each list that do not appear on the other. The descriptions appear to be plagarized, but not the names themselves. The article should be fixed, not deleted. I am sticking with my Keep.  Plasticup  T / C  15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I still think it's a keep. If I thought it was a speedy I'd have tagged it as so, I was just pointing out the speedy option. If the bulk of it is the same, the Coren Bot will pick it up and tag it. As far as I'm concerend, it's a good list that needs some work on it, but a definite keep. --Ged UK (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're using WP:PEOPLE as the criteria for "notable Native Americans", then two of the people on this list don't have articles - which one would assume to mean that they aren't notable Native Americans (James Logan and William Clyde Thompson). Logan is on the webpage linked above, Thompson is on neither that page, nor the other "source" that is listed on this article. I'm not sure why he is listed since there is nothing to suggest that he is "notable". If you remove all the plagarized descriptions then you're left with a list of names. If we are using PEOPLE as the basis for notability then that means that all of these Native Americans should have an article. If they have an article then that means they are categorized. If they are categorized then that means they are listed in alphabetical order and that makes this page redundant to the category that lists all of them already. One more reason to delete the page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So you're saying that because two people on the list don't have articles, they aren't notable? That's nonsensical logic. Far more likely is no-one's written the article yet. If you don't think they're notable, fine, take them out of the list, but it's hardly a reason to delete the entire article. Ged UK (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not flawed, I'm merely pointing out the logic that PEOPLE is the notability criteria for this page. If that's the case, then everyone on this list must meet the standards set forth by PEOPLE. Since two of the names appear to fail said criteria deductive logic would assume that they aren't notable. I have no idea, I'm simply stating how it is presented. Regardless, this page is still redundant to the category that lists all these people already (minus two of them apparently, since they don't have a page...but you can technically categorize non-pages as well so that could be easily fixed).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Plasticup, plagarisim is when you take someones words and try to pass them off as your own. Sure the desription is the same on most, but that is why references are cited. If you cite a reference the you are not trying to pass something off as your own. Otherwise 75% of wiki is plagarism, and also in response to BIGNOLE saying 2 of them dont have articles on here. Yes that is true but even in comments it was mentioned. That does not meaan they arent notable, it just means they dont have articles yet. So can those 2 names be deleted, Yes, that's not a problem. But you need to understand the word plagarism before you use it. BIGNOLE said a word he doesn't understand in reference to this page. The desriptions aren;t plagarized they are referenced.Swampfire (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But your assumption is because two people on the list don't have articles, they aren't notable. Which presumably means you think Wikipedia is complete. Which it clearly isn't. Ged UK (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment Lists are different from categories. One of the advantages of having a Wikipedia list is that you can have items on the list (in this case, names of notable Native Americans) worthy of being listed but not necessarily notable enough to have an article written--or, no one has written that article yet.  Otherwise, it would just be a category.  Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you GED UK and PAUL, this user never seems to understand when he is wrong, which led to his warnings yesterday for violating WP:NPA as well as why he followed me here today, and attacked me here. I have tried to get help to stop him, but they haven't blocked him yetSwampfire (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Swamp, you do realize that you are the only one concerned on this page with my "personal attacks" (which were more of me being uncivil than personally attacking you). Please stop distracting this AfD with our personal communications with each other. This is not the place. If you believe that I'm "attacking" you then please take it to WP:RfC or another similar noticeboard.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * William Clyde Thompson was a Texas Choctaw leader and James Logan was a famous Mingo Indian and ally of the English colonials. Both are notable, but don't have articles. I will create them now if it makes people more comfortable.  Plasticup  T / C  15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is only true if those without articles can be shown to be notable by themselves. It could be that they are notable, but, as you said, either no one has had a chance to write an article about them or there just isn't enough information on them. Regardless, a single webpage that lists their name does not make them "notable but without a page of their own". What makes those without articles notable? If nothing, then what makes this list necessary to have? --(edit conflict) - If you create their articles then it just brings me back to the point that the list is unnecessary since they are all categorized. Since anyone on the list will have to show notability in their own right just to be listed, then what is the point of having the list?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment do you disagree with all lists? Then please direct your comments to Lists.  Do you disagree with this list?  Doesn't seem like you're making that argument.   Bignole, what say you run over to the lists page and brush up on a lot of the work done so far on lists in the world of Wikipedia, then come back.  I'd appreciate it and take it as a personal favor... if you're ever in KC I'll buy you a slab of ribs!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with ALL lists, I think many are quite useful (I've worked on quite a few and gotten some to FL status). I disagree with lists based around the idea of "notability" (i.e. List of notable directors, or List of notable people). What deems these people more notable than the rest? A simple webpage that has their name? The fact that they have a page of their own? If we're listing everyone that falls into the subcategory of the list (e.g. Native Americans, Directors, etc) then this list becomes indiscriminate. If the list is based on one of the notability criteria then the list is redundant to a category that already lists all of these individuals - a category that can also list non-page indididuals in an effort to provide a window for users to come by and create those articles. Unless the list is full of prose (reliably sourced) explaining why all of these people are "notable" and should be in a "list of notables" then I don't see a reason to actually have a bare list of names.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you plasticup, BIGNOLE just never seems to get it. Eveven here he is the only delete among about 6 keeps and yet he still thinks he is right. And will probably violated WP:NPA again. I noticed once his arguement is shot down in flames he does that. Which as I said is the reason he is here todaySwampfire (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also just incase anyone doesnt believe me about him following me. Check out his contribs. He has never had anything to do with this list of Native Americans. And yet his first post TODAY after being offline for 10 hours was here. You see the person that put this up for deletion, placed a link in my talk page. So Once he signed in it is obvious he went directly to my talk page, then came straight here, to start an new arguement after he was warned yesterday for violating WP:NPA against me. I was alos one of the ones to warn him as well as an admin that warned him. But the evidence is there if you look. Here it is just look at the 14:31 edit and the last previous one was 4:27. He says this isn't about me, but his personal attack in his first comment says it all.Swampfire (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that we do/don't believe you/him. This just isn't the place for it.  Plasticup  T / C  16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, he only came here to argue against me, especially since I created the page. I have left message on the admins page that warned him yesterday. But you can oviously tell he looked at my talkpage today right after logging in, and saw where the link to this was placed there, and came immediately here to start his things. Because this was his first obviously post. And he thought he would throw the word plagarism around, which is not true. Plagarism is if you take somes words and try to pass them off as your own. The references used to help with the list has always been there. So I NEVER tried to pass anything off as my own. In fact if i had tried to do that, then it would of been classified as original reasearch. But plagarism in general is not about using someone elses words, it is about passing them off as your own.Swampfire (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And my point is that you are still talking about it. The AfD should be debated on its merits, and the bad blood between you and Bignole should be sorted out elsewhere. Let's not mention stalking, WP:NPA, or any of that again and just move on with the AfD debate.  Plasticup  T / C  16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly, I was just letting you know. That no matter what you say, he will not give in, he will merely change his arguement.Swampfire (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The list in itself is very different than the the ones of the indigenous people to the Americas or of Native Americans. As those are all inclusive of Canada, United Sates, Mexico, Central America, South America an so on. This was created to concentrate specifically on the United Sates.Swampfire (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is useful and should not be deleted. However, some people might think that "Native American" means all Americans who are native to the country and not only American Indians so maybe another title is better. TrinityExchange (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The term Native American vs American indian has been debated for a while. There is an article on wiki about it as well. This page was created as a companion page to Native Americans of the United States where this discussion has also taken place, with it being left as Native American. Mainly because the term American Indian excludes Alaska Native and pacific islanders.Swampfire (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No issues have been mentioned with this article that cannot be sorted out with some editing. Subject is clearly notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Has merging List of Notable Native Americans of the United States with List of Native Americans been considered? --maclean 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No because they are 2 very different lists. List of Native Americans includes, ALL of North, Central and South America. This one was designed as a specific list in companion to Native Americans of the United States.Swampfire (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While at heart, I don't have a problem with lists of this nature, I really wish there would be a consensus on defining "Native American", and that this be included in writing above the list. -- is is someone who was definitively a member of a tribe? Is it someone with a single great grandparent who was Native American?  On the surface these issues seem pretty cut and dry, but in the end I see problems with potential verification.  This could go for any ethnic list ... I'm not even sure I would qualify as "Irish-American", being that I had one great grandparent who was Irish, yet many people would consider me as such. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no problem in the U.S. with being called Native American. If you go to the Native Americans of the United States talk page you will see this discussion there along with links to other pages on here. And links to other sites including the Native American Journalists Association where they state in all media there are only two acceptable general terms for all the tribes "Native American" or "American Indian". But the actual prefered term when referring to an individual tribe is by the tribe name. Also yes I am Powhatan Indian(Algonquian). As well as Creek Indian.Swampfire (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 Strong Keep  Regardless of the source of current content, if there are already more than a few WP articles on Native Americans of the United States (each article must be notable in its own right), then this list just merely Listifys that collection of articles. To challenge this list on notability grounds doesn't make sense, whereas challenging an individual entry on notability or other grounds may be appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per precedent of many other lists of notable people. Vizjim (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones are those? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first trillion or so can be found by following this link. 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't look at the List of posthumously-born notable people - I guess that'd really wind you up! 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As of now 8 keeps (Ged UK, Plasticup T/C, Swampfire, Paul McDonald, TrinityExchange, DJ Clayworth, Mike Cline, Vizjim), 1 delete (Bignole), 1 that has no problem with this list (LonelyBeacon), and 1 that posed a question of merge (maclean) Swampfire (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also if the only beef is the word "notable" then that word can be removed renaming ther page List of Native Americans of the United States. As stated by all those that say keep. You don't delete the whole thing because of one word. Remove the word or replace it with a word that you think is better suited as long as it is agreed upon.Swampfire (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Numbers are not the only thing that matter. Policy must also be considered. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:POV have been raised about the concerns that there is no criteria for what makes these people "notable" (Wikipedia's definition of notable people is not a valid criterion), the terminology "Native American", the fact that it mirrors another site almost exactly, and that it's POV without objective criteria. Most of the keeps are: precedent, which does not exist on Wikipedia, Other crap exists, "It's a good and worthwhile list", which has no actual reasoning put forth, and It's useful. Removing the word from the title will not solve the problem. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a mirror. The list was started as a small list on Native Americans of the United States then was improved, and used several lists as reference all of which were cited In fact one editor in here even pointed out all the differences. Also if you think there should be criteria as to how they are "notable" Why not help fix what you deem a problem? Also the term "Native American" is not an issue. I can point you to plenty of articles on here stating "Native American" in the title. Including an article on here that the entire article is about which one to use.Swampfire (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seresin, if you're going to quote Other crap exists, you might want to check the bit at the top of that page, where it says "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Deletion policy." 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR supports this list, since what it guards against is directory-like lists (e.g. “every member of the Cherokee”). In other words, notability should always be a factor. WP:NOTMIRROR equally supports this list, since it makes a specific exception for lists of this nature (point 2). WP:POV is irrelevant - notability is a well-established method for selecting lists (so, yes, Wikipedia notability guidelines matter). Vizjim (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vizjim has pointed out things that actually support instead of going against this page. Also the list does have criteria for notability. The list is also a current work in progress the same as ALL Wikipedia. It is worked on everyday.Swampfire (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time this discussion be closed with the page being left as is. Overwhelming majority states KEEP with reasons given. along with the fact that the page is constantly being improved.Swampfire (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it's been collated as an arbitrary "super awesome cool Native Americans of the United States", but rather as a list of Native Americans of the US who are notable in terms of "within the scope of wikipedia".  I do think "Notable" should be removed from the title, and I think you can do so without causing a shift in the contents or spirit of the list.  It's a discrete list that covers encyclopedic content and has a clear purpose for anyone researching native americans. Vickser (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I will add my voice to keep. The issue of notability of the people being listed is really not an issue.  The only thing (I'm repeating myself), and this would go for any list of an ethnic group, please be sure to be clear early on what the criteria for inclusion are (not in terms of notability, but in terms of being listed as "Native American".  I know that can be a sensitive area for any group, but I think it is important to avoid having a runaway list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I see nothing wrong in principle with having a page such as this, except that it is an unnecessary list. The value (and probably only value) of lists of this kind is that they identify (by redlinks) articles that are needed.  However this list has none.  Categories are a much more satisfacotry navigation tool.  Accordingly, a check should be made that all articles are in an appropriate "native American" category.  Then delete.  I make this comment for structural reasons, and without haveing investigated how the articles are in fact categorised.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The value of lists like this is for learning. The reason there are lists or categories on here is to help point you to other people of interest that you may have never heard of, and you could possibly learn something. On Wikipedia both lists and categories act as and INDEX page. Swampfire (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:CLN for the guideline that expands SF's comments. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:L This also expands my comment as well as supports this embedded list, and so does this WP:EMBED Swampfire (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.